(1) Whether the petitioners who were subjected to two inquiry proceedings wherein they were exonerated of the charges, could he subjected to de novo inquiry for the third time without recording valid reasons?

(2) Whether Abdul Hameed, Patwari petitioner in C.P. 4100/L of 2001, who, after show-cause notice was awarded minor punishment of withholding of two increments which was not challenged by him, could be proceeded against on the same allegations again and awarded major penalty in violation of Article 13(a) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

(3) Whether the petitioner were not bound under section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act to enter and sanction the mutation in accordance with the judgment and decree of the Court which was not ex parte, and whether any executive instructions regarding the entry and sanctioning of mutation could override statutory provisions?

(4) Whether the petitioners against whom allegation of corruption or mala fide act has been proved at all and admittedly no loss has been caused to the Government, they could be imposed maximum major penalty or dismissal from service or ends of justice would have met by imposing minor penalty as alleged misconduct was entry and sanction of the mutation on the basis of a Court decree without proper approval of the Collector?

(5) Whether the exoneration of the petitioner in C.P. 23/L of 2002 twice in the findings of the inquiries from the allegations of sanctioning the mutation in part Patwar which was corrected in the Part Sarkar which was rejected immediately which was endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, was not sufficient to exornerate him from the allegations that such entry in Part Patwar was inadvertent and in routine, thus, would fall within the scope of section 166 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967?

(6) Whether the endorsement of the two inquiry reports by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector would not amount to waiver of the approval for entry and sanctioning of the mutation which was not even the legal requirement?

(7) Whether non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 7-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 by the Authorized Officer would not vitiate the order of dismissal of the petitioners from service?

The charge against the appellants in nutshell was that they on the basis of an Exparte decree passed by a learned Civil Judge at Lahore, without the permission of District Collector, Lahore, proceeded to sanction the mutation of the land in possession of P.W.D., Irrigation and Police Departments of Government of Punjab, in favour of decree-holders and thereby with ulterior motives and mala fide intention, caused loss to the Government. [pp. 1620, 1621] A & B